change, not movement. (author: e. colin ruggero)

Gramsci

The title for this blog comes from the work of Antonio Gramsci, a critical influence on my thinking. There is a great deal of excellent work on Gramsci’s ideas out there (see below), work that is likely a better introduction than I can provide. However, it seems worth offering a brief outline of those portions of his work that most interest me, Domination, Hegemony and Counter-Hegemony. First, a few biographical notes.

Biography

Gramsci was born in Sardinia in 1891. He attended the University of Turin on scholarship and joined the Socialist Party there in 1914. While in Turin he made a name for himself as a journalist and leader in Turin’s factory council movement. He joined a Socialist congress walkout and in 1921 helped to form the Communist Party of Italy, which he became leader of. Between 1922 and 1926, Gramsci and the party struggled against the rise of Italian fascism under Mussolini. Political repression was rampant and reached a head in 1926 under a new set of emergency laws. Gramsci was arrested, despite supposed parliamentary immunity, and his trial was little more than a show. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Gramsci suffered from health complications his entire life and his time in prison aggravated these problems. Due to the severity of his condition, only eight years after his arrest Gramsci transferred to a guarded hospital in Rome where he spent the last two years of his life before his death in 1937. Much of Gramsci’s work comes from a series of notebooks he kept while in prison. The notebooks themselves cover a wide array of topics and their translation and interpretation has been the focus of numerous scholars since their first appearance in 1946. There are three elements of his work that I would like to discuss here – his writings on domination, hegemony and counter-hegemony – and I will be adding more of these ‘conceptual summaries’ on a ongoing basis.

Domination and Hegemony

Gramsci theorized that dominant groups maintain their position through a mix of sheer force (coercion through political society) and, more importantly, with the active participation of the subordinate groups (consent through hegemony in civil society).

The use of coercion in the process of domination is the domain of what he calls ‘political society, ‘ meaning “the armed forces, police, law courts and prisons, together with all the administrative departments concerning taxation finance, trade, industry, social security, etc.” (Simon, 1990:71). In Gramsci’s view, however, these are only a portion of the state’s domination framework. Indeed, the role of political society, the “apparatus of state coercive power,” is to enforce “discipline on those groups who do not ‘consent’” (Gramsci, 2003:12). The state, or dominant group, only turns to coercive tactics if efforts to manufacture consent fail. Consent to domination, the second portion of Gramsci’s formula of power, is developed within civil society. It is an internalized form of domination that differs from the external, “direct domination” achieved through the coercive force of political society (Gramsci, 2003:12). Civil society is the sphere within which the state pursues (and maintains) hegemony, a social order where “a common social-moral language is spoken, in which one concept of reality is dominant, informing with its spirit all modes of thought and behaviour” (Femia, 1981:24).

Hegemony, however, is not simply achieved through the alignment of the free choices of subordinate groups. Consent is actively manufactured within civil society; hegemony is pursued through “extremely complex mediums, diverse institutions, and constantly changing processes” (Buttigieg, 1995:7). “Through their presence and participation in various institutions, cultural activities, and many other forms of social interaction, the dominant classes ‘lead’ the society in certain directions” (Buttigieg, 2005:44). Hegemony operates through the social institutions of civil society: the church, the educational system, the press, all the bodies which help create in people certain modes of behaviour and expectations consistent with the hegemonic social order. Gramsci’s civil society “is best described not as the sphere of freedom but of hegemony” (Buttigieg, 1995:6).

Counter-hegemony

Gramsci conceived of two methods for challenging hegemony: a ‘war of maneuver’ and a ‘war of position,’ best understood as points on a continuum rather than mutually exclusive options. A ‘war of maneuver’ involves physically overwhelming the coercive apparatus of the state. However, the success of this strategy depends on the nature of the state’s hegemony, that is, its position within civil society. In a comparison of the state in Czarist Russia with that in liberal democracies (referred to as the East and the West respectively), Gramsci notes that the strength of the latter lies in a sturdy civil society [here Gramsci uses the term State to mean government, or political society, as opposed to his more broad definition used elsewhere and throughout this text (i.e. State= political society + civil society)]:

In the East the State was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between State and civil society, and when the state tottered, a sturdy structure of civil society was immediately revealed. The State was just a forward trench; behind it stood a succession of sturdy fortresses and emplacements. (Gramsci, 2007:169)

In modern liberal democracies, direct confrontation (armed uprising, general strike, etc.) will not threaten the dominant groups so long as their credibility and authority is firmly rooted in civil society. Buttigieg notes, “civil society, in other words, far from being a threat to political society in a liberal democracy, reinforces it—this is the fundamental meaning of hegemony” (Buttigieg, 2005:41).

However, Gramsci does not give up on the notion of radical change in liberal democracies, he was a writer principally focused on a radical transformation of capitalist society. His central concern was “how might a more equitable and just order be brought about, and what is it about how people live and imagine their lives in particular times and places that advances or hampers progress to this more equitable and just order” (Crehan, 2002:71). Consequently, it was his view that “one should refrain from facile rhetoric about direct attacks against the State and concentrate instead on the difficult and immensely complicated tasks that a ‘war of position’ within civil society entails” (Buttigieg, 2005:41). Described by Gramsci as “the only viable possibility in the West,” a ‘war of position’ is resistance to domination with culture, rather than physical might, as its foundation (Gramsci, 2007:168). Cox succinctly describes a ‘war of position’ as process which “slowly builds up the strength of the social foundations of a new state” by “creating alternative institutions and alternative intellectual resources within existing society” (Cox, 1983:165). For Gramsci, issues of culture are what lie at the heart of any revolutionary project; culture is “how class is lived,” it shapes how people see their world and how they maneuver within in it and, more importantly, “it shapes their ability to imagine how it might be changed, and whether they see such changes as feasible or desirable” (Crehan, 2002:71). The complex program of radical social change in a modern liberal democracy, as described by Gramsci, involves more than anything, developing a strong and dynamic culture capable of establishing the necessary institutions for a subversion of hegemony. It with this mindset that I approach my work and the things I post here.

11 Comments

the hegemony idea appears similar to marxian false consciousness, and you mention ‘manufacutre of consent’ (chomsky, lippman). obviously the current anarchist milieu along with similar diy, znet and green things, most of which were preceded by similar things in the 60′s (communes, coops etc.) does try to buid new in the shell of the old.

i guess i am just surprised these sorts of ideas are considered new. (i read uri gordon’s thesis and was surprised you get a PhD from oxford on that basis, but i guess alot of poli sci is not exactly much deeper than an acceptable wikipedia article).

i will say that current anarchist type things tend sometimes towards marginality, so they reinforce hegemony in fact. or in terms of anarchy mag’s ‘manifesto’ they are false opposition, or ‘posing’ (fake black bloc rebels who will show up in 10 years like Bill Ayers of the weathermen or Fischer of the German greens—as total members of the establishment who essentially preserve it). even chomsky says his dissent is an example of manufacturing consent to a false democracy.

I’m afraid I’d have to disagree with your descriptions of war of manoever and war of position. The war of position, related to passive revolution, is something always played out through history as long as there is revolution. Yes, even the bourgeoisie are involved in the war of position. The goal is not to INSTIGATE a war of position, but to WIN IT OVER (counter-hegemony). This is related to the position of intellectuals in society, language, mode of production…and everything! Thought I would clarify.

“is there always hegemony? Haven’t figured that one out yet.”…. If Atrebla is asking it as a question… then i feel that the answer is yes.
Because , there has always been a struggle between the ruler and ruled, the oppressor and oppressed. Oppressors ruled with the help of some ideology such as lower classes, castes, races, religion etc are humans of lesser intellect or soul and so it is ordained by God/destiny that they are supposed to suffer hardships, do the menial work only, etc etc. That ideology is nothing but hegemony only. Oppressed people accept that ideology for long time until they realise it (war of position) and then revolt against it (war of movement), as we all know.

Thanks for the comments. I would say there is always hegemony, because the term denotes (for me) something that is held or controlled by groups (to varying degrees and hegemony is never totally held or achieved). Counter-hegemonic ideologies seek to expand their hegemony. Thus, I do not think it is possible to WIN a war of position (precisely), because this is something that is always happening. Wars of position are the continual negotiation of power, subordination and resistance, which never comes to ‘completion’ exactly.

I read a lot of interesting articles here. Probably you spend a lot
of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of work, there is
an online tool that creates high quality, google friendly articles
in minutes, just search in google – laranitas free content source

Unquestionably believe that which you said. Your favorite reason seemed to be on the
web the easiest thing to be aware of. I say to you, I certainly get irked while people consider worries that they just do not know about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the
whole thing without having side effect , people could take
a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

You need targeted traffic to your Gramsci | A War of Position website so why not try some for free? There is a VERY POWERFUL and POPULAR company out there who now lets you try their traffic service for 7 days free of charge. I am so glad they opened their traffic system back up to the public! Sign up before it is too late: http://b-612.me/7